Skip to Content
 

Blind trading ideas?

19 replies [Last post]
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 11:02
mongoosedog
mongoosedog's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012

Right now I have it so that when 2 players make a trade (first they discuss it), they exchange cards face down. A player can then pay to inspect the trade. If the other player is caught in a lie, the player that payed gets to keep 1 of the cards from the trade (their choice). If a trade goes through amd then it is found out that the trade was bad. The liar get a bad reputation token. These take off points at the end of the game.

Now while I do like it over all. It doesn't really fit my theme. It is a trading, set collection game. I am trying to figure out a better way to blind trade between 2 players with punishments.

Anyone have any idea what direction I could go?

Top
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 11:36
#1
ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
Well, you've mentioned that

Well, you've mentioned that it doesn't fit your theme, but forgot to tell what the theme actually was. :)

Top
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 11:37
#2
mongoosedog
mongoosedog's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
Very good point. It is about

Very good point. It is about traders. The silk road kind.

Top
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 16:28
#3
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
How is a player's bad trade

How is a player's bad trade NOT going to be found out? Is the recipient of a bad trade penalized for not keeping a poker face? That's like twice the penalty for naive trading.

Furthermore, if there's no penalty to those who have made a bad trade, then those who have been the recipient of a bad trade one too many times will not want to trade with anyone, much less the previous shady trade partner.

I don't understand how to incorporate this reliably/consistently. Discouraging trade in a game about historically broadening trade routes initially seems counterproductive. Does this really need to be part of the game?

Top
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 16:47
#4
mongoosedog
mongoosedog's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
That is my issue. They will

That is my issue. They will find out immediatly when they are flipped over. I like the idea of people trying to cheat but with a penalty if you get caught. That is how that old trading went. Though it was normally with fake goods or theft.

The finding out is like once you get the goods you found out and the paying for inspection is like finding out before you get screwed (not a great return policy in 200 BCE). The bad rep penalty can be worth it if you make you set because of it.

It still seems wonky with the theme though.

Top
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 18:22
#5
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Is there any way you can have

Is there any way you can have each player contribute to the "pot" each round, and then one player collects all the cards? Some cards can be bad, some can be good, but generally speaking the player makes out positively unless it's an incredibly bad hand?

If players collect a pot in turn, then other players can either advance them or move them behind based on how well they feel that player is doing.

If players collect a pot in random order, then only after a player has collected will they want to put in their worst cards. But by then, they would miss out on collecting their best cards if they hadn't played them yet.

If players collect a pot in random order but know what order they go in before bids go out each turn, then that may also change the dynamics. For example, each player draws a card from the "order deck." Then cards are played face-down in a deck, then shuffled. The player who has the "First Pick" card then reveals it and collects the pot.

The above is one way to allow players to give one another a bad deal via playing cards face-down and shuffling, but it can be tempered with the random order.

Just something to think about (and personally, what I think would be an interesting game idea!).

Top
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 18:33
#6
Tedthebug
Tedthebug's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2016
Maybe play accusations?

It's a bit like another card game I can't remember (cheat?) that my kids play occasionally but what if you have the players make the trade & then they can make an accusation of cheating/bad trade if they want. Cards are flipped & if it is upheld then there is a penalty to the person making the bad trade & if it isn't then the person making the false accusation is penalised. I suppose whoever wins the claim gets both cards. If both players think the other is being honest then they don't flip the cards, they just pick up their trade & don't reveal what happened, but they will know whether to trust the person again on any future trade. It's probably closer to what would've happened.

Also, it might encourage players to try deception in the hope that they will win the 2 cards & have more to trade, which increases the chance they may lie since they can afford to lose more cards whereas players with less cards may be more honest as they try to win cards or be so desperate that they lie about what card they are trading simply because they have so few cards there is an increased chance that they don't actually have what they say they do.

Top
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 18:59
#7
mongoosedog
mongoosedog's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
Tedthebug wrote:It's a bit

Tedthebug wrote:
It's a bit like another card game I can't remember (cheat?) that my kids play occasionally but what if you have the players make the trade & then they can make an accusation of cheating/bad trade if they want. Cards are flipped & if it is upheld then there is a penalty to the person making the bad trade & if it isn't then the person making the false accusation is penalised. I suppose whoever wins the claim gets both cards. If both players think the other is being honest then they don't flip the cards, they just pick up their trade & don't reveal what happened, but they will know whether to trust the person again on any future trade. It's probably closer to what would've happened.

Also, it might encourage players to try deception in the hope that they will win the 2 cards & have more to trade, which increases the chance they may lie since they can afford to lose more cards whereas players with less cards may be more honest as they try to win cards or be so desperate that they lie about what card they are trading simply because they have so few cards there is an increased chance that they don't actually have what they say they do.

I like that idea, but what if both players are lacking trust and both turn out to be correct? It did give me an idea though. Thanks.

Top
Tue, 04/19/2016 - 21:47
#8
Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
My favorite board game of all

My favorite board game of all time, Civilization, requires players to reveal a subset of accurate information. What happens is there is enough trading in the game that player emergent behavior is plenty enough penalty. If someone takes me once, then next time I trade with them I offer an unfavorable deal and reference the past incident.

It works because maximum profit relies on cornering the market. Also, the fact that trades are not revealed to the table may be important.

If you really want to allow penalties, then I'd look to work with maybe discounting some kind of aggressive activity. So, if players can say pay 3 coins to spread a negative rumor about another player, that cost is reduced to 1 on the next time you spread a rumor against the given player.

And victory point penalties reward all other players.

Top
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 08:21
#9
mongoosedog
mongoosedog's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
I think I figured it out!

How does this sound?

The trade terms are set. Both participants lay their yrade cards face down in front of them. At this point both players have the opportunity to accuse the other of lying. If the accuser is correct, the liar gets a bad rep. token. If a false accusation was made, the accuser gets a bad rep. token.

I have a couple of thing left to sort out, but the main mechanic I like.

Top
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 12:33
#10
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
mongoosedog wrote:How does

mongoosedog wrote:
How does this sound?

The trade terms are set. Both participants lay their yrade cards face down in front of them. At this point both players have the opportunity to accuse the other of lying. If the accuser is correct, the liar gets a bad rep. token. If a false accusation was made, the accuser gets a bad rep. token.

I have a couple of thing left to sort out, but the main mechanic I like.

I still don't see how this (1) encourages trade between players in a trading game, and (2) doesn't set back a trade loser with a double-penalty.

This seems more appropriate for a deduction game instead of a trading game. Is that the angle you're seeking to pursue with this?

Top
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 13:12
#11
mongoosedog
mongoosedog's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
let-off studios

let-off studios wrote:
mongoosedog wrote:
How does this sound?

The trade terms are set. Both participants lay their yrade cards face down in front of them. At this point both players have the opportunity to accuse the other of lying. If the accuser is correct, the liar gets a bad rep. token. If a false accusation was made, the accuser gets a bad rep. token.

I have a couple of thing left to sort out, but the main mechanic I like.

I still don't see how this (1) encourages trade between players in a trading game, and (2) doesn't set back a trade loser with a double-penalty.

This seems more appropriate for a deduction game instead of a trading game. Is that the angle you're seeking to pursue with this?

It is a set building game that relies heavily on trading to complete the sets. It will have more of a penalty for lying and less of one for accusing. That was just the basic mechanic.

Top
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 15:55
#12
ruy343
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2013
Spitballing

I've toyed around with this sort of idea for a while, but I've never implemented it. Here was my solution:

When you receive cards in a trade, they remain face down until it's time to prove set collection. At that point, everything you have face down is shuffled and revealed at once. It may be difficult for you to determine who lied to you if you were looking for the same resource from multiple people. This system also makes dishonest trading more profitable.

This also encourages a player to investigate their trades more, since they don't get to see the result of the trade after it's made. Perhaps a system to accuse a person after the reveal phase to penalize them if true is called for...?

Just a thought.

Top
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 16:27
#13
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
How does this work?

ruy343 wrote:
When you receive cards in a trade, they remain face down until it's time to prove set collection. At that point, everything you have face down is shuffled and revealed at once. It may be difficult for you to determine who lied to you if you were looking for the same resource from multiple people. This system also makes dishonest trading more profitable.
There's like, no accountability to any trade partner in that scenario. It sounds to me like you are discouraging trade in that game, much like the other game described by the OP.

In all seriousness: How can you expect a player to want to trade with others when there's no guarantee that what they ask for is what they receive? How can you encourage someone to carry out honest trades with someone when their resources won't be revealed and there's no guarantee they will be believed anyway? The trade mechanism, as you describe it, obscures all truth at all points. It would hardly be different than drawing cards at random from a draw pile, except that opponents can stack the deck against you. Is that the game you're looking for?

If I played this game, I would never give away anything anyone asked for, because I assume that's what they need and there's no information that tells me otherwise. On the flip side, I would only ask for things I -don't- need, with the off chance that someone would try to screw me over by giving me things I am not directly asking for.

What am I missing, that makes these solutions so viable? I don't want to come off simply contrarian just for the sake of it, but I have to admit I am honestly confused. How does this work?

Top
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 17:05
#14
ruy343
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2013
Whoa, bro

I was just spitballing, per my title.

That said, I think that it could work, but you'd need to put together other systems, like trade agreements (allowing mutual discounts) or systems to call out liars and such.

'twas just an idea.

Top
Thu, 04/21/2016 - 05:43
#15
Tedthebug
Tedthebug's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2016
What about a true trade token as well?

As well as having a liar/penalty token how about also having a true trade token? That way if they lied they get a lie token, if they traded true they get a truth token. When they reveal their sets they net the lie & truth tokens out & then they can use a true trade token to counter any card that failed their set or if they had a nett of lie tokens they disregard a required card from their set for each token?

Top
Thu, 04/21/2016 - 08:10
#16
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
ruy343 wrote:'twas just an

ruy343 wrote:
'twas just an idea.
Yeah, I have no idea how or why I became so worked up about this in particular. My apologies. :)

Top
Mon, 09/26/2016 - 23:36
#17
Baarune
Offline
Joined: 05/16/2016
Original idea minus the

Original idea minus the penalty token for a bad trade. The trader knows instantly if he got the cards he wanted. There is no need to share the information.this would give away most of your hand.

Lets say it is in your interest to trade with other players more. So you want to be picked in others turns. If you got a good trade from player A you could try bluffing that they gave you the wrong cards. Perhaps they "gave" you something you know the other player wants. So you bluff this in order to get a trade with player B on their turn.

Bad reputation is inherent. Theres no need to put a value to it.

Top
Wed, 09/28/2016 - 03:37
#18
adversitygames
adversitygames's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2014
mongoosedog wrote:Very good

mongoosedog wrote:
Very good point. It is about traders. The silk road kind.

The asian trade routes or the dark web black market site? Very different "kind".

Top
Wed, 09/28/2016 - 04:12
#19
radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
Sorry didn't read all the comments...

The thing that stuck out to me when doing a blind trade was just a simple "add a third card" to the mix.

It may not work to the OP's game, but it will give a 2/3 chance for a player to get something new...that way if an opponent decided to give out a bad card, there's a chance a player can get a different card.

But I'm not sure if that fits with the trade theme...it was just a thought in my head.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut